We may also note that there is a difference here between the word nearly and the word almost, close as they are in meaning: almost cannot be modified by any word, and the phrase very almost is certainly impossible. Whether this is sufficient reason to put them into different parts of speech is another matter.
Chapter XXI
MODAL WORDS
The distinction between modal words and adverbs is, as we saw in our general survey of parts of speech, based on two criteria: (1) their meaning: modal words express the speaker's view concerning the reality of the action expressed in the sentence, (2) their syntactical function: they are not adverbial modifiers but parentheses, whether we take a parenthesis to be a special part of the sentence or whether we say that it stands outside its structure. The latter problem is one that we will discuss in Syntax.1
We must emphasise that this view is far from being the only one possible: one might argue that the meaning of an adverb as a part of speech might be described in such a way as to include what we call modal words, and to mention the function of parenthesis among the syntactical functions of adverbs. Where clear objective morphological criteria fail there will always be room for different interpretations. We will not argue this point any further but start on the assumption that modal words do constitute a separate part of speech.
Modal words have been variously classified into groups according to their meaning: those expressing certainty, such as certainly, surely, undoubtedly; those expressing doubt, such as perhaps, maybe, possibly, etc. The number of types varies greatly with different authors. We need not go into this question here, as this is a lexicological, rather than a grammatical, problem. From the grammatical viewpoint it is sufficient to state that all modal words express some kind of attitude of the speaker concerning the reality of the action expressed in the sentence.
In the vast majority of cases the modal word indicates the speaker's attitude towards the whole thought expressed in the sentence (or clause), e.g. Look, there are those doves again. The one is really quite a bright red, isn't it? (R. WEST) She is a delicate little thing, perhaps nobody but me knows how delicate. (LAWRENCE)
If the modal word in each of the sentences is eliminated the whole thought will lose the modal colouring imparted to it by the modal word, and will appear to be stated as a fact, without any specific mention of the speaker's attitude.
However, occasionally a modal word may refer to some one word or phrase only, and have no connection with the rest of the sentence. It may, for example, refer to a secondary part of the sentence, as in the following example: No one expected his arrival, except Rose presumably. (LINKLATER)
The use of modal words depends to a great extent on the type of the sentence. This will be discussed in Chapter XXIV,
1 See Chapter XXIX.
Functions of Modal Words 165
A modal word can also make up a sentence by itself. This happens when it is used to answer a general question, that is, a question admitting of a yes- or no -answer. Certainly, perhaps, maybe, etc. may be used in this way. In these cases, then, modal words are the main part of the sentence. This brings them close together with the sentence words yes and no. ' However, they differ from the sentence words in that the modal words can also be used as parentheses in a sentence. Thus, the question, Are you coming? may equally be answered, Certainly I am, or Certainly. The sentence words yes and no cannot be used as parentheses. Whether the answer is Yes, or Yes, I am, the yes is a sentence in both variants.
It might be possible to argue that if the answer to the question Are you coming? is Certainly, the word certainly is a parenthesis, and the rest of the answer, / am, is "understood". While such a view cannot be disproved, it seems unnatural and far-fetched, and we will prefer the view that Certainly in this case is a sentence.
The problem of modal words is connected with the very difficult problem of modality as a whole. This has been treated repeatedly by various scholars both with reference to English and to Russian and in a wider context of general linguistics as well.2 We will not investigate here all the aspects of the problem. We will only mention that there are various means of expressing modality — modal words, modal verbs (can, must, etc.) and the category of mood. Since two of them or even all three may be used simultaneously, it is evident that there may be several layers of modality in a sentence. A great variety of combinations is possible here.
1 See p. 168.
2 See, for example, В. В. Виноградов, О категории модальности и модальных словах в современном русском языке. Труды Института русского языка, т. II, 1950.
Chapter XXII
THE INTERJECTION. WORDS
NOT INCLUDED IN THE CLASSIFICATION
Interjections have for a long time been an object of controversy. There has been some doubt whether they are words of a definite language in the same sense that nouns, verbs, etc. are, and whether they are not rather involuntary outcries, provoked by violent feelings of pain, joy, surprise, etc., not restricted to any given language but common to all human beings as biological phenomena are.
In our days this controversy is outdated. We can now safely say that interjections are part of the word stock of a language as much as other types of words are. Interjections belonging to a certain language may contain sounds foreign to other languages. Thus, for instance, the English interjection alas contains the vowel phoneme [ae], which is not found either in the Russian or in the German language; the Russian interjection ax contains the consonant phoneme [x], which is not found in English, etc.
The characteristic features which distinguish interjections from practically all other words lie in a different sphere. The interjections, as distinct from nouns, verbs, prepositions, etc., are not names of anything, but expressions of emotions. Thus, the emotion expressed by the interjection alas may be named despondency, or despair, etc., but of course it cannot be named alas. Another characteristic feature of the meaning of interjections is, that while some of them express quite definite meanings (for instance, alas can never express the feeling of joy), other interjections seem to express merely feeling in general, without being attached to some particular feeling. The interjection oh, for example, may be used both when the speaker feels surprised and when he feels joyous, or disappointed, or frightened, etc. The meaning of the interjection itself is thus very vague. We will not enter more deeply into this, as it is a question of lexicology rather than of grammar.
The grammatical problems involved in the study of interjections are to be considered on the usual two levels: that of phrases and that of the sentence.
On the phrase level the problem is whether an interjection can be part of any phrase, and if so, what types of words can be connected with it.
In the vast majority of cases an interjection does not make part of any phrase but stands (in this sense) isolated. However, that does not mean that it is impossible for an interjection to make part of a phrase.
For instance, the interjection alas can be connected with the group "preposition + noun", naming the person or thing which causes the feeling expressed by the interjection: Alas for my friends!
Functions of Interjections
The interjection oh can be followed by the adjective dear to form a phrase which itself is the equivalent of an interjection: Oh dear!
However, on the whole the possibility of an interjection being part of a phrase is very limited indeed. As far as we can see, an interjection can only be the first component of a phrase and never occupies the second or any other place within it.
On the sentence level the function of interjections is a controversial matter. How, for example, are we to interpret the syntactical function of the interjection in a sentence like this: Oh! she used awful grammar but I could see she was trying hard to be elegant, poor thing (M. MITCHELL)? The usual interpretation is that the interjection stands outside the structure of the sentence.1 Another view is that it is syntactically a kind of parenthesis at least in some cases.2 The controversy cannot be decided by objective investigation and the answer only depends on what we mean by sentence structure on the one hand, and by some element or other being outside the sentence structure, on the other.
We will start on the assumption that no element belonging to a sentence can be outside its structure, and we will treat the syntactical functions of interjections accordingly.3
An interjection, then, is, syntactically, a part of the sentence loosely connected with the rest of it, and approaching a parenthesis in its character.
However, an interjection can also stand quite apart and form a sentence by itself, as in the following passage: "He refused to marry her the next day!" "Oh!" said Scarlett, her hopes dashed. (M. MITCHELL)
Phrases consisting of two or more words and equivalent to interjections, such as Dear me! Goodness gracious! Well I never! etc., will be discussed in the chapter on phrases.
After having considered in some detail the morphological and syntactical peculiarities of different types of words described as parts of speech, we will now turn to certain words which have not been included in our classification.
The possibility, and even probability of such words existing in a language has been convincingly shown by Academician L. Ščerba in his paper on parts of speech in Russian, published in 1928. 4 He pointed out that there may be words in a language which are not
1 See, for example, Грамматика русского языка, т. I, стр. 674,
2 See В. Л. Жигадло, И. II. Иванова, Л. Л. Иофик, Современный английский язык, стр. 301.
3 See below, p. 234.
4 See Л. В. Щерба, О частях речи в русском языке. Избранные работы по русскому языку. стр. 66.
168 The Interjection. Words Not Included in the Classification
included under any category, and then, as he aptly put it, they would belong nowhere. It would indeed be no more than a prejudice to suppose that every word of a language "must" belong to some part of speech. There is nothing in language structure to warrant that assumption.
Academician Ščerba's idea is fully confirmed by some facts of Modern English. If, for instance, we take the word please, used in polite requests, we shall be at a loss to say to what part of speech it belongs. Traditionally, it was described as an adverb, but there appears to be no reasonable ground for this, either in the meaning of the word or in its syntactical function. (The morphological criterion of course yields nothing here, as the word is invariable like many words belonging to various parts of speech.) Rather than "squeezing" the word into some part of speech at whatever cost, we had better put up with the fact that it does not fit into any of them, and leave it outside the system.
Another case in point are the words yes and no. These were also traditionally treated as adverbs, though this was far less justified than even in the case of please. These two words can form sentences without any other word being joined on to them. It might be possible, after all, to take this as their basic feature, and to say that they form a special part of speech, namely, sentence words. However, such a procedure is extremely doubtful, both because that feature seems hardly sufficient for constituting a part of speech, and because the number of words involved is so small. It seems therefore preferable to leave these two words, like the word please, outside the system of parts of speech.
Other words deserving similar treatment may be found, and the possibility of being left outside the system of parts of speech should be left open to them.
Part Two
Syntax
Chapter XXIIl
PHRASES
In giving a general preview of our subject on p. 12 we pointed out that within the domain of syntax two levels should bo distinguished: that of phrases and that of sentences. In giving characteristics of a part of speech we consistently kept apart the two layers in so far as they concern the syntactical functions of parts of speech — their ability to combine with other words into phrases, on the one hand, and their function in the sentence, on the other.
In starting now to analyse problems of syntax itself, we must first of all try to elucidate as far as possible the sphere belonging to each of the two levels. After that we will proceed to a systematic review of each level.
We will term "phrase" every combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of some word (as, for instance, the perfect forms of verbs). The constituent elements of a phrase may belong to any part of speech. For instance, they may both be nouns, or one of them may be an adjective and the other a noun, or again one of them may be a verb and the other a noun, or one may be a preposition and the other a noun; or there may be three of them, one being a preposition, the other a noun, and the third a preposition, etc.
We thus adopt the widest possible definition of a phrase and we do not limit this notion by stipulating that a phrase must contain at least two notional words, as is done in a number of linguistic treatises. 1 The inconvenience of restricting the notion of phrase to those groups which contain at least two notional words is that, for example, the group "preposition + noun" remains outside the classification and is therefore neglected in grammatical theory.
The difference between a phrase and a sentence is a fundamental one. A phrase is a means of naming some phenomena or processes, just as a word is. Each component of a phrase can undergo grammatical changes in accordance with grammatical categories represented in it, without destroying the identity of the phrase. For instance, in the phrase write letters the first component can change according to the verbal categories of tense, mood, etc., and the second component according to the category of number. Thus, writes a letter, has written a letter, would have written letters, etc., are grammatical modifications of one phrase.
With a sentence, things are entirely different. A sentence is a unit with every word having its definite form. A change in the form of one or more words would produce a new sentence.
1 See, for instance, Грамматика русского языка, т. III, 1954, ч. 1, стр. 10.
172 Phrases
It must also be borne in mind that a phrase as such has no intonation, just as a word has none. Intonation is one of the most important features of a sentence, which distinguish it from a phrase.
Last not least, it is necessary to dwell on one of the most difficult questions involved in the study of phrases: the grammatical aspect of that study as distinct from the lexicological.
The difference should be basically this: grammar has to study the aspects of phrases which spring from the grammatical peculiarities of the words making up the phrase, and of the syntactical functions of the phrase as a whole, while lexicology has to deal with the lexical meaning of the words and their semantic groupings.
Thus, for instance, from the grammatical point of view the two phrases read letters and invite friends are identical, since they are built on the same pattern "verb + noun indicating the object of the action". From the lexicological point of view, on the other hand, they are essentially different, as the verbs belong to totally different semantic spheres, and the nouns too; one of them denotes a material object, while the other denotes a human being. Thus, the basic. difference between the grammatical and the lexicological approach to phrases appears to be clear. However, it is not always easy to draw this demarcation line while doing concrete research in this sphere.
It is to the phrase level that the syntactical notions of agreement (or concord) and government apply.
In studying phrases from a grammatical viewpoint we will divide them according to their function in the sentence into (1) those which perform the function of one or more parts of the sentence, for example, predicate, or predicate and object, or predicate and adverbial modifier, etc., and (2) those which do not perform any such function but whose function is equivalent to that of a preposition, or conjunction, and which are, in fact, to all intents and purposes equivalents of those parts of speech. The former of these two classes comprises the overwhelming majority of English phrases, but the latter is no less important from a general point of view.
TYPES OF PHRASES
The type "noun + noun" is a most usual type of phrase in Modern English. It must be divided into two subtypes, depending on the form of the first component, which may be in the common or in the genitive case. 1
The type "noun in the common case + noun" may be used to denote one idea as modified by another, in the widest sense. We
1 We will use these terms here in the traditional way. On the problems concerning them, see above p. 41 ff.
Types of Phrases 178
find here a most varied choice of semantic spheres, such as speech sound, silver watch, army unit, which of course deserve detailed study from the lexicological viewpoint. We may only note that the first component may be a proper name as well, as in the phrases a Beethoven symphony or London Bridge.
The type "noun in the genitive case + noun" has a more restricted meaning and use, which we need not go into here, as we have discussed the meaning of the form in -'s at some length in Chapter III.
Another very common type is "adjective + noun", which is used to express all possible kinds of things with their properties.
The type "verb + noun" may correspond to two different types of relation between an action and a thing. In the vast majority of cases the noun denotes an object of the action expressed by the verb, but in a certain number of phrases it denotes a measure, rather than the object, of the action. This may be seen in such phrases as, walk a mile, sleep an hour, wait a minute, etc. It is only the meaning of the verb and that of the noun which enable the hearer or reader to understand the relation correctly. The meaning of the verb divides, for instance, the phrase wait an hour from the phrase appoint an hour, and shows the relations in the two phrases to be basically different.
In a similar way other types of phrases should be set down and analysed. Among them will be the types, "verb + adverb", "adverb + adjective", "adverb + adverb", "noun + preposition + noun", "adjective + preposition + noun", "verb + preposition + noun", etc.
An important question arises concerning the pattern "noun + verb". In our linguistic theory different opinions have been put forward on this issue. One view is that the phrase type "noun + verb" (which is sometimes called "predicative phrase") exists and ought to be studied just like any other phrase type such as we have enumerated above. 1 The other view is that no such type as "noun + verb" exists, as the combination "noun + verb" constitutes a sentence rather than a phrase.2 This objection, however, is not convincing. If we take the combination "noun + verb" as a sentence, which is sometimes possible, we are analysing it on a different level, namely, on sentence level, and what we can discover on sentence level cannot affect analysis on phrase level, or indeed take its place. Besides, there is another point to be noted here. If we take, for
1 See, for instance, В. П. Сухотин, Проблема словосочетания в современном русском языке. Вопросы синтаксиса современного русского языка, стр. 127—182.
2 See В. В. Виноградов, Понятие синтагмы в синтаксисе русского языка. Вопросы синтаксиса современного русского языка, стр. 183—256.
174 Phrases
instance, the group a man writes on the phrase level, this means that each of the components can be changed in accordance with its paradigm in any way so long as the connection with the other component does not prevent this. In the given case, the first component, man, can be changed according to number, that is, it can appear in the plural form, and the second component, writes, can be changed according to the verbal categories of aspect, tense, correlation, and mood (change of person is impossible due to the first component, change of number is predetermined by the number of the first component, and change of voice is made impossible by its meaning). Thus, the groups, a man writes, men write, a man wrote, men are writing, men have written, a man would have been writing, etc., are all variants of the same phrase, just as man and men are forms of the same noun, while writes, wrote, has written, etc. are forms of the same verb. It is also important to note that a phrase as such has no intonation of its own, no more than a word as such has one. On the sentence level things are different. A man writes, even if we could take it as a sentence at all, which is not certain, is not the same sentence as Men have been writing, but a different sentence.
This example is sufficient to show the difference between a phrase of the pattern "noun + verb" and a sentence. The existence of phrases of this type is therefore certain. The phrase pattern "noun + verb" has very ample possibilities of expressing actions as performed by any kind of subject, whether living, material, or abstract.
Besides phrase patterns consisting of two notional words with or without a preposition between them, there are also phrases consisting of a preposition and another word, mainly a noun. Thus, such groups as in the street, at the station, at noon, after midnight, in time, by heart, etc. are prepositional phrases performing some function or other in a sentence. Some of these phrases are phraseological units (e.g. in time, by heart), but this is a lexicological observation which is irrelevant from the grammatical viewpoint.
Phrases consisting of two components may be enlarged by addition of a third component, and so forth, for instance the phrase pattern "adjective + noun" (high houses) may be enlarged by the addition of an adjective in front, so that the type "adjective + adjective + noun" arises (new high houses). This, in its turn, may bo further enlarged by more additions. The limit of the possible growth of a phrase is hard to define, and we will not inquire into this subject any further.
